Skip to content
Lynn W and Timothy W Peters Family Foundation at a glance

· Private foundation

Lynn W and Timothy W Peters Family Foundation

Its FY2025 filing reports that it funds preselected organizations and did not take unsolicited requests; check the foundation's own site before ruling it out.

$13k
Granted FY2025still arriving
11
Grants FY2025still arriving
3
States reached
$8k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0198% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Education$68kEnvironment$27kHealth$17kCommunity Improvement$5kFood & Nutrition$5kPhilanthropy$4kArts & Culture$500Religion$500Other$0
02FY2025 · 11 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

$500
Median grant
3
States reached
$179k
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
ST ANDREWS SCHOOL$7,500
LANCASTER GENERAL HEALTH FOUNDATION$1,500
SHORE RIVERS$1,000
SULTANA EDUCATION FOUNDATION$1,000
POWER PACKS PROJECT$500
UNITED WAY OF KENT COUNTY$500
RADCLIFFE CREEK SCHOOL$500
SCHREIBER CENTER FOR PEDIATRIC DEVELOPMENT$400
LANCASTER CONSERVANCY$300
CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION$100
EASTERN SHORE LAND CONSERVANCY$100
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY17–25, $5k) land where the poverty rate runs at 9%, against an area that typically sits at 6%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 6%POWER PACKS PROJECT: $500 → 9%POWER PACKS PROJECT: $500 → 9%POWER PACKS PROJECT: $500 → 9%POWER PACKS PROJECT: $500 → 9%POWER PACKS PROJECT: $500 → 9%POWER PACKS PROJECT: $500 → 9%POWER PACKS PROJECT: $500 → 9%POWER PACKS PROJECT: $500 → 9%POWER PACKS PROJECT: $500 → 9%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

93%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$119k · 15 repeat orgs$9k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +53% since the first grant, against +48% for those funded once.

15 repeat relationships: 11 still active in FY2025, 4 since wound down.

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

15
8

Total granted

$119k
$9k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+53%
+48%

Still filing today

80%
13%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 100% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $0 went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EnvironmentPhilanthropyEducationHealthArts & CultureHuman ServicesOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as new. Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.

Backed again, and grew

  • SE
    SULTANA EDUCATION FOUNDATION INC
    9× · 2017–2025 · $12k · revenue +34%
  • LG
    LANCASTER GENERAL HEALTH FOUNDATION
    7× · 2017–2025 · $11k · revenue +62%
  • SI
    SHORERIVERS INC
    8× · 2018–2025 · $9k · revenue +42%

Funded once

  • LR
    LANCASTER ROTARY FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2017 · $3k
  • CR
    CHESTER RIVER ASSOCIATION INC
    one grant, 2017 · $2k
  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2020 · $1k
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Lancaster Chamber of Commerce & Industry

The lancaster chamber of commerce & industry's mission is to create the environment, facilitate partnerships, and lead on issues that elevate business success. the chamber has 5 strategic priorities: public policy, workforce, business…

—
2
The Clearwater Conservancy of Central Pennsylvania Inc

To conserve and restore the natural resources through land conservation, water resources stewardship and environmental outreach across central pennsylvania.

Environment
3
Lake Champlain Land Trust Inc

The mission of the lake champlain land trust is to save the scenic beauty, natural communities, and recreational amenities of lake champlain by permanently preserving significant islands, shoreline areas, and natural communities in the…

Environment
4
Lancaster General Health

Provides managerial and financial support to its controlled organizations and is also responsible for undertaking activities designed to advance the general health of the community.

Health
5
Western Pennsylvania Conservancy

The western pennsylvania conservancy protects and restores exceptional places to provide our region with clean waters and healthy forests, wildlife and natural areas for the benefit of present and future generations. the conservancy…

Environment
6
Lyme Land Conservation Trust Inc

Conservation of lyme's natural, scenic and historic land & water resources.

Environment
7
Lancaster Emergency Medical Services Association

To provide comprehensive, skillful, cost effective emergency and non- emergency health care services to the lancaster community while continuing to evolve with changing health care needs.

Health
8
Land Conservancy of West Michigan

Our mission is conserving West Michigans ecologically critical land. We protect land by creating public nature preserves, providing support to communities and local governments in creating natural areas, and helping private landowners…

Environment
9
The Potomac Conservancy Inc

Potomac conservancy safeguards the land and waters of the potomac river and its tributaries and connects people to this national treasure.

Environment
10
Lancaster Science Center

To inspire curiosity, creativity, and confidence by fostering an inclusive environment for hands-on stem exploration. we actively seek to make our facility and educational programs accessible to all.

Arts & Culture
11
Glen Foerd Conservation Corporation

Glen foerd stewards an eclectic riverfront estate for the enjoyment and educational benefit of the community. drawing from the estate's architecture, art, material culture, and history-as well as its gardens and waterways-glen foerd…

Environment
12
Land Trust Accreditation Commission

The mission of the land trust accreditation commission is to inspire excellence, promote public trust and ensure permanence in the conservation of open lands by recognizing land trust organizations that meet rigorous quality standards and…

Environment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Lancaster General Health Foundation; the most unlike its peers is Power Packs Project. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

15 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 15 of the 24 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
14/15
Grantees still filing
14/15
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

ST ANDREWS SCHOOL: $61,500 · OtherST ANDREWS SCHOOLLANCASTER ROTARY FOUNDATION: $3,333 · Other+8 more: $5,130 · Other+8 moreLANCASTER GENERAL HEALTH FOUNDATION: $11,300 · PhilanthropyLANCASTER GENE…UNITED WAY OF KENT COUNTY INC: $4,200 · PhilanthropyUNITED WAY OF …LANCASTER COUNTY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $1,050 · PhilanthropyLANCASTER COUN…SHORERIVERS INC: $8,800 · EnvironmentSHORERIVERS…LANCASTER COUNTY CONSERVANCY: $2,800 · EnvironmentLANCASTER C…CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION INC: $1,100 · EnvironmentCHESAPEAKE …EASTERN SHORE LAND CONSERVANCY INC: $600 · EnvironmentSULTANA EDUCATION FOUNDATION INC: $11,700 · Arts & CultureSULTANA ED…LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL: $4,000 · HealthSCHREIBER CENTER FOR PEDIATRIC DEVELOPMENT: $1,600 · HealthLANCASTER COUNTRY DAY SCHOOL: $3,600 · EducationRADCLIFFE CREEK SCHOOL INC: $2,000 · EducationPOWER PACKS PROJECT: $4,500 · Human ServicesLANCASTER CITY ALLIANCE: $1,000 · Community Improvement
Other$69,963Philanthropy$16,550Environment$13,300Arts & Culture$11,700Health$5,600Education$5,600Human Services$4,500Community Improvement$1,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetSULTANA EDUCATION FOUNDATION INC: $11,700 over 9y, 0.1% of budgetLANCASTER GENERAL HEALTH FOUNDATION: $11,300 over 7y, 0.1% of budgetSHORERIVERS INC: $8,800 over 8y, 0.0% of budgetPOWER PACKS PROJECT: $4,500 over 9y, 0.1% of budgetUNITED WAY OF KENT COUNTY INC: $4,200 over 9y, 0.3% of budgetLANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL: $4,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetLANCASTER COUNTRY DAY SCHOOL: $3,600 over 6y, 0.0% of budgetLANCASTER COUNTY CONSERVANCY: $2,800 over 9y, 0.0% of budgetRADCLIFFE CREEK SCHOOL INC: $2,000 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetSCHREIBER CENTER FOR PEDIATRIC DEVELOPMENT: $1,600 over 4y, 0.0% of budgetCHESTER RIVER ASSOCIATION INC: $1,500 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetCHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION INC: $1,100 over 9y, 0.0% of budgetLANCASTER COUNTY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: $1,050 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetLANCASTER CITY ALLIANCE: $1,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetEASTERN SHORE LAND CONSERVANCY INC: $600 over 6y, 0.0% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

  • Who funds SULTANA EDUCATION FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds LANCASTER GENERAL HEALTH FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds SHORERIVERS INC ↗
  • Who funds POWER PACKS PROJECT ↗
  • Who funds UNITED WAY OF KENT COUNTY INC ↗
  • Who funds LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL ↗
  • Who funds LANCASTER COUNTRY DAY SCHOOL ↗
  • Who funds LANCASTER COUNTY CONSERVANCY ↗
  • Who funds RADCLIFFE CREEK SCHOOL INC ↗
  • Who funds SCHREIBER CENTER FOR PEDIATRIC DEVELOPMENT ↗
  • Who funds CHESTER RIVER ASSOCIATION INC ↗
  • Who funds CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION INC ↗
  • Who funds LANCASTER COUNTY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds LANCASTER CITY ALLIANCE ↗
  • Who funds EASTERN SHORE LAND CONSERVANCY INC ↗

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

The Steinman Foundati…High FoundationLancaster County Comm…W Paul Starkey Founda…Willis and Elsie Shen…David a Bramble Found…Ferree FoundationMid Shore Community F…Clark Associates Char…The Keith Campbell Fo…The Seraph Foundation…The Henry Sears Found…
The Steinman FoundationPA19.9× affinity7 shared granteesties to 7 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: The Steinman Foundation · High Foundation · Lancaster County Community Foundation · W Paul Starkey Foundation · Willis and Elsie Shenk Foundation · David a Bramble Foundation Inc · Ferree Foundation · Mid Shore Community Foundation Inc · Clark Associates Charitable Foundation · The Keith Campbell Foundation for the Environment Inc · The Seraph Foundation Inc 6018-01-41 · The Henry Sears Foundation Inc

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Lynn W and Timothy W Peters Family Foundation funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Lynn W and Timothy W Peters Family Foundation. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 20%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 13%
  • Eastern Shore Land Conservancy Inc: 100% of income from government
  • Shorerivers Inc: 13% of income from government
  • Sultana Education Foundation Inc: 8% of income from government
  • Chesapeake Bay Foundation Inc: 2% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
2get no government money at all
3report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
1rely on government for over half their income
typical government reliance, FY20–25
How this is measured
Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12 to 24 months.

On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 24 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

How this is measured
Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

Generated from the IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Lynn W and Timothy W Peters Family’s filings →

More from the funding graph

The unnamed billions
grants reported with no recipient in the public record
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
The endowment market
who holds foundation money, and what just moved
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home